Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.5 supported the impugned order and contended that revisional court has found that wrong approach was adopted by trial court which had no jurisdiction to enter into merits of the case at the time of disposal of third party application; that since order passed by trial court was found to have been passed in exercised of a jurisdiction not vested in it under law, the revisional court has rightly set it aside and remitted for afresh disposal; that respondent no.5 is son of Moosa, who was in possession over the property in suit and he was necessary party; that disputed land in question was leased out to Moosa and he was hereditary tenant of plot no.1378 & 1380 but taking undue advantage of his illiteracy, the plaintiff with malafide intentions to usurp his property, wrongly and falsely got entered possession of his mother Smt. Rama Devi in conspiracy with revenue officials, while plaintiff and his mother have no right, title or possession over the property in suit at any point of time; that plaintiff in collusion with defendants has filed suit for obtaining decree for permanent injunction, which involves declaration of his title; that if respondent no.5 is not impleaded in the suit he will be deprived of his rights over the property in suit without affording him opportunity to produce evidence in support of his claim and doors of justice will stand shut for him; that if respondent no.5 is not impleaded, the plaintiff will succeed in his illegal designs and in obtaining collusive decree and respondent no.5 will suffer irreparably.
